College and Research Libraries RICHARD W. BOSS Audio Materials in Academic Research Libraries Questionnaires and in-person visits to large academic libraries in 1971 form the basis of this report which reveals the low priority given to nonprint materials by the majority of these libraries. Visuals are prac- tically nonexistent; audio materials remain eclipsed by print. Non- print collections tend to be initiated from stimulation outside the li- brary:~ and:~ once established:~ suffer from space and maintenance prob- lems while the research potential is largely ignored. AunroVISUAL MATERIALS are common- place in school and college libraries, and the literature on the theory and applica- tion of selection, preparation, and use of these materials is extensive. However, the research library director who is con- sidering the introduction of nonprint media into his library encounters a dearth of usefUl background informa- tion. In 1967 the writer was asked to prepare a set of specifications for a dial- access information at the University of Utah. The job was made more difficult because a literature search produced lit- tle of substance. Even in 1971 it was still not possible to determine what in- stitutions have facilities and how they are used. The writer, therefore, undertook a survey of audiovisual materials in re- search libraries with a Council on Li- brary Resources Fellowship Grant. A questionnaire was developed, test- ed, and sent to all academic libraries in the Association of Research Libraries to determine which institutions collect and service audiovisual materials. Sixty- Richard W. Boss is director of libraries, the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. eight of the seventy-five libraries queried responded, a satisfying 90.7 per- cent. Seventeen institutions, 25 percent, re- ported that they had no audiovisual ma- terials. One reported no materials, while indicating that plans were being made to include such materials in a new building. The fifty remaining questionnaires were analyzed to determine which insti- tutions should be visited. Seventeen, or 34 percent, were selected for an in-per- son visit for one of the following rea- sons: (a) a large audiovisual materials collection, (b) a significant investment in audiovisual equipment, or (c) a statement of strong commitment to au- diovisual service. The availability of audio materials and services in academic research li- braries is still extremely limited. Visual materials and services are even more limited. Only twelve of the seventy-five institutions collect films, film strips, slides, or other visual materials. If slide collections are eliminated, less than half a dozen institutions own more than a hundred items. This apparent lack of commitment is in sharp contrast to the alleged acquisitions policies of thirty- eight of these libraries, which report I 463 464 I College & Research Libraries • November 1972 their policy is to acquire materials with- out regard to physical format so long as they relate to the teaching and re- search programs of the university. One explanation for the emphasis on audio rather than visual materials in the library is the existence of a campus audiovisual center outside the library on at least thirty-nine of the campuses. Most of the centers have extensive film collections and limited collections of other visual materials. Because the hold- ings of visual materials proved so sparse, the study of contemplated visual materials and services was abandoned. Interviews with librarians revealed that most of the programs were begun as the result of an academic department taking the initiative. In twenty-eight of the fifty cases the initiative was provid- ed by the music department. Eighteen of the principal listening facilities are located in music branch libraries. On twenty campuses where the primary in- stallation is in the main library, there is a secondary listening facility in the music library. On ten campuses the pri- mary installation is in the undergradu- ate library. ,These facilities were usually established at the time the undergradu- ate library was built, and they constitut- ed the first commitment of the library to listening facilities. Two campuses have campus-wide systems, not operated by the library, but by a special agency. However, most of the listening positions are in the library. The number of patrons served by the listening facilities range from as few as 130 per month to as many as 120,000 per month as is summarized in Table 1. Only nine of the fifty facilities can be considered major. Less than 5,000 uses per month would be less than one use per student per month on any of the campuses. On most campuses, it would mean less than one use per stu- dent per quarter. There appears to be little relationship between the amount of use and the size of the collection. The two institutions with the highest use rank below the me- dian in collection size, while five of the ten institutions with the least use rank in the top quartile of collection size. Only two institutions have more than 50,000 recordings. Sixty percent of them have between one thousand and ten thousand recordings. Three owned few- er than 500 recordings. Nine institutions use phonodiscs ex- clusively in their music-listening facili- ties. Thirty-two use both audiotapes and phonodiscs, but mostly phonodiscs, TABLE 1 NUMBER OF PATRONS SERVED PER MONTH BY THE LISTENING F AGILITIES Over 100,000 . . One 50,000 to 100,000 . None 25,000 to 50,000 One 10,000 to 25,000 One 5,000 to 10,000 Six 2,500 to 5.000 . Seven 1,000 to 2,500 . Eight 500 to 1,000 . Six Less than 500 . Two No statistics kept Nine Didn't answer . Nine whereas nine institutions use audiotapes only. Those using audiotapes only re- ported the largest number of users. These institutions have found that phonodiscs will not hold up under heavy use and have converted to audio- tapes. The two largest facilities began with audiotapes, however. Twenty-five of the fifty listening fa- cilities are primarily music-listening sys- tems, while eleven were set up to serve the needs of departments concerned with English literature. In two cases the systems were set up specifically for poet- ry listening. Four of the systems were designed for recreational listening spe- cifically. Overall, in twenty-four systems recreational listening constitutes a sub- stantial percentage of the total use. Three systems are language-listening systems, not of the drill variety, but sys- tems which feature plays, poetry, and speeches in foreign languages to supple- ment classroom and laboratory training. Three other systems were set up specifi- cally to support zoology, mechanical en- gineering, and speech, respectively. In four cases, the principal purpose of the system was not identified. The vast majority of the systems are used by three or fewer academic de- partments because only three of the in- stitutions are actively promoting listen- ing facilities among faculty. Users of the library are usually not directed to the listening facility through the card catalog. Thirty-eight of the institutions do not include audio materials in the main card catalog; nine do, and in three, partial listings are recorded: in one case, phonodiscs only; in another, .spoken materials only; and in another, main entry only for all materials. The differences in attitudes toward audio and print materials becomes ap- parent as one talks with directors, acqui- sition librarians, and cataloging heads. Most agree that audio materials are im- portant, but give them a lower priority than printed items. Only in those insti- tutions where the processing of audio materials is done in the listening facili- ty is there no significant backlog. In the cataloging departments of main li- brari'es, audio materials are given a low- er priority in all but three institutions. In only one library do the materials re- ceive a higher priority. The majority of the systems are locat- ed in basem·ents, on top floors, or in oth- er low-priority locations. All listening system heads reported great difficulty in competing with other library depart- ments for space. The most serious condition observed, however, is the poor maintenance of equipment. One third to one half of the equipment was down at the time of the visit. In most of the facilities visit- ed, there is a lack of technical compe- Audio Materials I 465 tence on the part of the staff, and pre- ventative maintenance agreements with qualified firms are the exception rather than the rule. The materials are also in poor condition, especially the phono- discs. Music librarians who said they chose phonodiscs over audiotapes be- cause they want to provide better ser- vice, s·eem to have more scratched phonodiscs, poor cartridges, and a larger number of machines out of order than those libraries which use audiotapes. Again, the two largest systems, operated by nonlibrarians and staffed with tech- nically trained personnel, have the best quality materials and the lowest equip- ment downtime. The predominant complaint of all the listening-room attendants and super- visors consulted is poor maintenance. In- terviews with students on the campuses reveal substantial displeasure with the quality of equipment maintenance and the condition of phonodiscs and audio- tapes. This suggests that an institution should not seek to provide this service unless it is prepared to hire a technically qualified person to maintain the system or contract this to an electronics firm. In general, facilities which use dial access ( 8) have the best maintenance and the highest user satisfaction. Those with central control rooms rank next, and those which provide turntables and tape decks for hands-on control by stu- dents have the lowest level of satisfac- tion. Those who have chosen the indi- vidual units said they chose them be- cause they felt this would be more pop- ular with patrons. It appears that pa- trons prefer to sacrifice hands-on con- trol in order to get greater reliability and higher program quality. Ten of the institutions allow materi- als to be circulated, while twenty-five do not, under any circumstances, permit circulation. Eight permit faculty to charge out materials, three more allow occasional loans to different classes of patrons. Four institutions not visited did 466 I College & Research Libraries • November 1972 not answer the question. Generally those circulating materials have collections of phonodiscs. All but one of the libraries circulating materials reported that their collections are in poor condition. Thirty-seven of the institutions allow no reproduction of their materials, two allow occasional reproduction, five did not answer, and six permit unrestricted reproduction. Only one of these pro- duces all of its own materials. The five which allow the reproduction of copy- righted materials expressed no strong concern about copyright infringement. It is interesting, too, that one campus with two listening facilities restricts re- production in one for fear of copyright infringement and openly allows it in another because copyright infringement is not considered a problem. A review of the existing listening fa- cilities reveals such a broad range of at- titudes and practices that it is difficult to generalize. There is no question that audio materials are far less important than print materials. Libraries have re- sponded to demands from patrons in most instances rather than seeking to in- novate by offering a wider range of me- dia for the support of teaching and re- search. Research us~ of audio materials is conspicuously absent on all campuses. Even those most strongly committed to audio materials in research libraries think of them only as teaching and rec- reational materials. Three of the cam- puses have separate archives for record- ed sound. It was the heads of the ar- chives who demonstrated concern for research. Their collections tend to be ex- tremely large, well preserved, and infre- quently used, with very strict quality control. There are thousands of high quality phonodiscs and audiotapes of music, drama, poetry, speeches, and interviews available at reasonable prices. The ac- quisition, processing, and servicing of audio materials by university libraries would strengthen research on university campuses. Understanding and apprecia- tion are enhanced when one hears the inflection in the spoken word or the in- terpretation of music by an outstanding performer or conductor. The written text of a Roosevelt «Fireside Chat" cannot possibly convey the significance of this use of the radio medium for seeking political consensus. A comparison of performance of clas- sical music is basic to musical research. Audio materials should be an integral part of each library's collection, but they won't unless we begin to look be- yond physical format to content and usefulness.